ArticleBMC health services research2016
The accuracy and completeness for receipt of colorectal cancer care using Veterans Health Administration administrative data.
Article in BMC health services research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Summary of Veterans Health Administration Cancer Data Sources.Journal of registry management · 2024Article
- Association between imaging surveillance frequency and outcomes following surgical treatment of early-stage lung cancer.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2023Article
- Relationship between S100A4 protein expression and pre-operative serum CA19.9 levels in pancreatic carcinoma and its prognostic significance.World journal of surgical oncology · 2019Article
- [Assessment of Three Risk Adjustment Systems as Predictors of the Consumption of Medicines and Medical Supplies at Polyvalent Hospitalization Units. Spain].Revista espanola de salud publica · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe National Comprehensive Cancer Network and the American Society of Clinical Oncology have established guidelines for the treatment and surveillance of colorectal cancer (CRC), respectively. Considering these guidelines, an accurate and efficient method is needed to measure receipt of care.
methodsThe accuracy and completeness of Veterans Health Administration (VA) administrative data were assessed by comparing them with data manually abstracted during the Colorectal Cancer Care Collaborative (C4) quality improvement initiative for 618 patients with stage I-III CRC.
resultsThe VA administrative data contained gender, marital, and birth information for all patients but race information was missing for 62.1% of patients. The percent agreement for demographic variables ranged from 98.1-100%. The kappa statistic for receipt of treatments ranged from 0.21 to 0.60 and there was a 96.9% agreement for the date of surgical resection. The percentage of post-diagnosis surveillance events in C4 also in VA administrative data were 76.0% for colonoscopy, 84.6% for physician visit, and 26.3% for carcinoembryonic antigen (CEA) test.
conclusionsVA administrative data are accurate and complete for non-race demographic variables, receipt of CRC treatment, colonoscopy, and physician visits; but alternative data sources may be necessary to capture patient race and receipt of CEA tests.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.